Psychology and Philosophy

toby jones said:

Publications could be given a weighted score on two dimensions: Quality of journal and how recent they are.

I'm not at all convinced that psychology is a 'broader' field than philosophy.

31 sub-specialities:

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown.asp

Click to expand...

Philosophy rankings crack me up!

James and Dewey are roling in the grave to see that Harvard and Columbia are not even on the list for Pragmatism!

Russell is roling in his grave to know that Oxford is not in the top three of Mathematical Logic!

Poor Hofstadter to be ranked so low in Philosophy of Cognitive Science! Must be a strange loop!

Kant and German Idealism in American universities! Heidegger is roling in his grave.

19th century Philosophy after Hegel! Hegel is roling in his grave since he thought there could be no philosophy after him!

Toby, as to whether or not philosophy is more broad that psychology clearly comes down to how you hold on the question of the one and the many, as well as infinite divisibility! So theoretically, depending on how you hold, you could have and infinite number of sub-specialities or no sub-specialities.

Also, a Ph.D. in Philosophy literally means a Philosophical Doctorate in Philosophy. This is clearly a tautology. Clearly, there is a need for a new degree modeled after the Psy.D. called a Phil.D. - oh wait this is what Oxford already offers! This could be a whole debate which models the Ph.D. vs. Psy.D.!

Toby, why are you on this site if it is not even your field?

RayneeDeigh said:

The APA has 54 (I think?) divisions. Granted, divisions of any broad field are pretty arbitrary anyway.

The psychology vs philosophy debate is definitely one I've never seen on this forum before. Interesting.

Click to expand...

Remember Raynster, William James, after founding American Psychology left it to become a Philosopher! Kind of tells you something.

The aforementioned post with my name on it apparently rewrote itself on this thread. Therefore the text is no longer my own. You saw it first here on SDN! We now have empirical evidence of deconstructionism (don't say anything T4C, you could ruin my results if anyone finds out the truth).

"This then would not have been a book (thread) (post)" - JD

I never intended to start a 'psychology vs philosophy' debate. Sometimes comparing two different things that often aren't compared can lead to insights for both, however. For example, philosophy rankings aren't done on the basis of publications (as the psychology ones are) - but that might be an interesting thing for philosophy to try and see how useful that is (and how different it is from the current way of doing things). Similarly, psychology rankings aren't done on the basis of peer-esteem (as the philosophy ones are) - but that might be an interesting thing for psychology to try and see how useful that is (and how different it is from the current way of doing things).

I don't mind people laughing WITH me, but I don't particularly appreciate people laughing AT me. I don't do this to others, and I'd really appreciate it if others could return that courtesy to me.

If people find my posts irrelevant - they can of course ignore them.
If people don't like what I have to say - they can of course ignore what I have to say. I don't see that I'm 'spamming' the boards, and I don't see that I'm attacking / judging / mocking other people so I don't really see what the trouble is...

> Toby, why are you on this site if it is not even your field?

Ah the arbitrary nature of field divisions. Because philosophy of psychopathology is my field (too small a field for a sub-division in the rankings to be sure) and thus philosophy of psychology (especially cognitive neuropsychology) and philosophy of psychiatry (especially nosology) is basically what I do... I also have psychology as a major in my first degree (if that helps things along at all). Clinical psychology and / or med school (for psychiatry specialisation) may be possibilities for me after I finish up my PhD...

Okay. Fair 'nuff. Sorry if I'm sensitive, but I have trouble attempting to justify to scientists why some philosophers study Kant and Leibniz and so on and so forth (I have no earthly idea)...

toby jones said:

I never intended to start a 'psychology vs philosophy' debate. Sometimes comparing two different things that often aren't compared can lead to insights for both, however. For example, philosophy rankings aren't done on the basis of publications (as the psychology ones are) - but that might be an interesting thing for philosophy to try and see how useful that is (and how different it is from the current way of doing things). Similarly, psychology rankings aren't done on the basis of peer-esteem (as the philosophy ones are) - but that might be an interesting thing for psychology to try and see how useful that is (and how different it is from the current way of doing things).

Click to expand...

Do not worry if you intended it or not (see Freud's Creative Writing and Daydreaming or Jacque Derrida's Of Gramatology). Brilliance (i.e. this Thread) is born regardless of intent (even if T4C thought he intended something, it exceeds his intentions).

toby jones said:

I don't mind people laughing WITH me, but I don't particularly appreciate people laughing AT me. I don't do this to others, and I'd really appreciate it if others could return that courtesy to me.

If people find my posts irrelevant - they can of course ignore them.
If people don't like what I have to say - they can of course ignore what I have to say. I don't see that I'm 'spamming' the boards, and I don't see that I'm attacking / judging / mocking other people so I don't really see what the trouble is...

Click to expand...

Sorry, for any misunderstanding. I was not laughing at you but just at the notion of rankings really mattering at all in a field like philosophy which embodies the true essence of academics! Ranking are beneath philosophy! My jokes were all supposed to be playing on this sentiment by saying what some of the great philosophers would think of philosophy rankings.

toby jones said:

Toby, why are you on this site if it is not even your field?

Ah the arbitrary nature of field divisions. Because philosophy of psychopathology is my field (too small a field for a sub-division in the rankings to be sure) and thus philosophy of psychology (especially cognitive neuropsychology) and philosophy of psychiatry (especially nosology) is basically what I do... I also have psychology as a major in my first degree (if that helps things along at all). Clinical psychology and / or med school (for psychiatry specialisation) may be possibilities for me after I finish up my PhD...

Click to expand...

THAT ROCKS!! Move over RayneeDeigh, Tkj, T4C, Sorg, Paramour, and the Mountaineer (sorry, it is to late to think of your screen name), Toby Jones is my new SDN Psychology hero. I have to PM you about your Ph.D (but not now it is too late). If only Gilles Deleuze were still around to sit on your committee!

Therapist4Chnge said:

For clarification, I started this thread for two reasons:
1. So the other one didn't get off topic
2. Since I believe there is a great deal of philosophy in psychology (duh) and vice versa, I thought it'd be fun to talk about all of that. This is why I did Psych AND Phil, as opposed to Vs. I didn't want it to become polarized.
-t

Click to expand...

This may be a mistake in category but thanks for starting the Thread! I do not think of it as a debate between Psychology and Philosophy, rather an crossover or intersection of the two.

toby jones said:

Okay. Fair 'nuff. Sorry if I'm sensitive, but I have trouble attempting to justify to scientists why some philosophers study Kant and Leibniz and so on and so forth (I have no earthly idea)...

Click to expand...

Fools! They would not even be scientists today if Kant had not saved human thinking as we know it. And if they give you a hard time about Leibnitz, you take a monad and shove it up their @#$%!

Sorry I've been a bit supersensitive lately. Deadlines are getting to me...

“Cosmically, I seem to be of two minds. The power of materialist science to explain everything – from the behavior of the galaxies to that of molecules, atoms and their sub-microscopic components – seems to be inarguable and the principle glory of the modern mind. On the other hand, the reality of subjective sensations, desires, and – may we even say – illusions, composes the basic substance of our existence…” (John Updike, “Testing the Limits of what I Know and Feel", April 18, 2005)

Author John Updike, in the above quote, illustrates a sort of dialectical tension that I find in the field of clinical psychology. On one hand, there is the aspect of the field that is informed by science; the use of empirical methodology to reveal truth. This method has proven to be the bedrock of effective and ethical practice in psychology. On the other hand, there is subjectivity to life which is, at times, just as powerful in its description of truth as an empirical methodology. For a simple example, I can explain my love for my fiancée in multiple ways. In one sense, there is a complex physiological reaction involved. However, I can best explain my love to another human being in a more subjective, metaphorical way (i.e. the fact that, after 6 years, my love only seems to grow, that she has become “a part of me,” etc.). Are both objective physiology and subjective metaphor valuable to the overall understanding of the human experience? I think so. However, it seems that our culture separates the two forms of knowing – the objective and subjective – instead of integrating them into a meaningful epistemology. It also seems to me that the fields of psychology and philosophy are in a unique place to understand both, as well as aid their application in theory and practice.

The point being that, within the historical development of clinical psychology, there have been a plethora of metaphysics and epistemologies that have shaped the field as we know it today. This is not written to spark argument or present a form of dogma, but merely to invite the idea that it is important to know the various metaphysics and epistemologies that influence our field in both obvious and latent ways. Further, where the philosophies came from, and how they manifest themselves in the field of clinical psychology on a broad sociocultural level as well as in the personal lives of clinicians and clients should be considered highly valuable to our overall understanding.

This is simply my reaction from the Updike quote, and I thought it would fit within this thread.

Although I have nothing substantive to add at the moment -- brain is a little fried -- just wanted to say that I love this thread.

Isn't it interesting that the things we "know" subjectively are just as important and sometimes more important than the things we "know" objectively. I think the previous poster has it right.

Great thought-provoking discussion!

IT514 said:

"Cosmically, I seem to be of two minds. The power of materialist science to explain everything – from the behavior of the galaxies to that of molecules, atoms and their sub-microscopic components – seems to be inarguable and the principle glory of the modern mind. On the other hand, the reality of subjective sensations, desires, and – may we even say – illusions, composes the basic substance of our existence…" (John Updike, "Testing the Limits of what I Know and Feel", April 18, 2005)

Author John Updike, in the above quote, illustrates a sort of dialectical tension that I find in the field of clinical psychology. On one hand, there is the aspect of the field that is informed by science; the use of empirical methodology to reveal truth. This method has proven to be the bedrock of effective and ethical practice in psychology. On the other hand, there is subjectivity to life which is, at times, just as powerful in its description of truth as an empirical methodology. For a simple example, I can explain my love for my fiancée in multiple ways. In one sense, there is a complex physiological reaction involved. However, I can best explain my love to another human being in a more subjective, metaphorical way (i.e. the fact that, after 6 years, my love only seems to grow, that she has become "a part of me," etc.). Are both objective physiology and subjective metaphor valuable to the overall understanding of the human experience? I think so. However, it seems that our culture separates the two forms of knowing – the objective and subjective – instead of integrating them into a meaningful epistemology. It also seems to me that the fields of psychology and philosophy are in a unique place to understand both, as well as aid their application in theory and practice.

The point being that, within the historical development of clinical psychology, there have been a plethora of metaphysics and epistemologies that have shaped the field as we know it today. This is not written to spark argument or present a form of dogma, but merely to invite the idea that it is important to know the various metaphysics and epistemologies that influence our field in both obvious and latent ways. Further, where the philosophies came from, and how they manifest themselves in the field of clinical psychology on a broad sociocultural level as well as in the personal lives of clinicians and clients should be considered highly valuable to our overall understanding.

This is simply my reaction from the Updike quote, and I thought it would fit within this thread.

Click to expand...

IT514,

Interesting that Updike was the author of the initial quote. Clearly, anyone who has read any of the Rabbit novels knows that Updike is a genius at capturing the human condition in prose. "Ah, Run!"

I agree that the empirical psychological research tends to be reductionist in terms of the ways it speaks about or defines human experience. As a former professor in psychology once told me, "you can research anything you want as long as you can quantify it." In many ways this outlook has lead to enlightenment about the mysteries of the world and, in our case, better more effective treatments for people. In fact many truths we know about the world run contrary to the way humans perceive or experience it. This has been a major question in the whole history of epistemology: does the world really exist as we experience it, including ourselves. Unfortunately, philosophy may be more to blame than psychology with eliminating such questions ever since Ryle, Ayer, and other Wittgenstein descendents decided these were not legitimate questions but rather problems in language. Psychology has never really shunned such questions although behaviorists tend to run closest to adopting analytical philosophy. However, I think this is not a necessary logical connection even though they would basically refuse to speak about non-material constructs (even B.F. Skinner wrote in opposition to breaking up behavior into numbers/ statistics).

I have recently begun to think that psychology has inadvertently, in its attempt to be a real science, ignored the non-objective component of the person by ignoring qualitative research. Conceivably, qualitative research could be just as rigorous as quantitative research. This may be the best way for psychologists doing research to meld the the objective and subjective experiences which Updike describes. Mental health providers, psychologist included, who do therapy are always accused of being touchy feely while the researchers are the cold distant ones. Perhaps the best way to reverse this image while at the same time preserving the scientific rigor is for psychological/ social scientists to find more appropriate ways are capturing the phenomenology of the human within their scientific parameters. If this doesn't work everyone can always go back to reading Updikes vivid descriptions of Rabbit Angstrom's unfufilled life.

Therapist4Chnge said:

I spoke with an old school psychodynamic professor about the push towards purely evidence based practice, and he quipped that we should think about why the CBT clinican goes to an analyst when s/he needs to work through something and can't, instead of going to another CBT'er.

The evidence may not be present at this moment, but that could be do to an inability to properly quantify, and not an inability to enact meaningful change.

Click to expand...

Is this true or is it just the psychodynamic professor putting down the CBT'ers?

A friend of mine, who is now a clinical psychologist, but at the time was at a major research school, told me that psychotherapy/ psychological treatment studies show that no type of therapy really has any overall significant statistical effectiveness over any other type of therapy. Only that treatment shows effective over no treatment. Again, this is in general - overall effectiveness, not for specific condition such as behavioral vs. psychodynamic for treating phobias. I did not see these studies so I do not know if the information I was told was correct. Only that the friend was very knowledgeable.

The debate about evidence-based treatment intrigues me.

In my experience in business the most successful people use research data to inform their judgment, but they don't rely on data to make their decisions for them. In other words, knowledgable, educated, experienced people have something to add to the equation. Data alone cannot make the best decisions.

Whether that also holds true in psychology, each person has to decide for themselves but, for me, I see the parallels.

Of course, as been discussed at length in other threads, there are times when a specific approach is clearly indicated based on past results, but lots of times it doesn't seem to be as clear cut.